Controversial Speech on Campus
Freedom of Expression vs. Freedom from Discrimination?
The exchange of words, ideas and information fuels the critical thinking and debate that academic institutions hold in such high regard. Students and faculty are encouraged to engage each other in discourse on complex and often controversial issues. But what limits, if any, should there be to the proliferation of speech on campus where there is the potential to offend?
The following section is intended to provide an overview of the issues surrounding this debate and to offer some information regarding the role of the university with regard to controversial expression. This section also provides suggestions to community members interested in bringing speakers or events to campus that may arouse controversy.
Universities provide a unique service to their communities and to the society at large. Besides being in the business of instructing and disseminating established knowledge, universities also actively commit to the open and sincere testing of ideas and theories. Universities play an important role in providing contexts in which individuals may freely and safely investigate “truth” and actively engage in the pursuit of knowledge. Debate and disagreement are seen as healthy and productive elements of university life. It is in the fulfillment of a university’s mission to “let truth and falsehood grapple” that protection of freedom of expression in universities becomes critical. Freedom of expression, however, is not protected where such expression has the intention or effect of inciting hatred and violence.
Queen’s requires all students, staff and faculty to abide by regulations such as the Harassment and Discrimination Policy and the University Code of Conduct, which are meant to compliment human rights codes and other legal documents. The Harassment and Discrimination Policy specifies that discrimination or harassment based on religion, gender, handicap, ethnicity, national origin or sexual orientation is strictly “unacceptable and constitutes an offence within the university community.[1]”
Queen’s also entrenches the freedom “to express [one’s] thoughts publicly[2]” and asserts “universities are interested in universal knowledge, including all religious, philosophical and political viewpoints...[3]”
These documents highlight two apparently conflicting ideas. On the one hand, the university claims that protection from discrimination is important, but on the other supports the concept of freedom of speech. It can be argued that the former puts a reasonable limit on the latter. But where is the line to be drawn? And who is to determine where to draw it?
Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibit the dissemination of hate speech. Section 318 prohibits the promotion of genocide and Section 319 prohibits the public incitement of hatred. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifies four fundamental freedoms that everyone is able to enjoy, and one of these is the Freedom of Expression. The ability to disagree with the majority is one of the most important characteristics of a democratic society. Yet, with the growing diversity of this country, Canadians also value the protection from hatred that the Criminal Code offers. It is easy to see how these two well-intentioned ideals may collide with one another. What happens when the words of one appear to promote discrimination against another? Which right is to take precedence? Universities, such as Queen’s, that encourage expression from different persons and groups often become forums for debate that centres on these seemingly conflicting freedoms.
Section 318 of the Criminal Code outlines specific criteria that must be met in order for text to be classified as hate speech. These stipulations try to ensure that the right to freedom of expression is considered while protecting groups from undue harm. Thus, it is possible for speech to seem hateful in content without meeting the strict legal criteria for hate speech. This is not to say that we don’t have a right to be outraged by speech that seems disrespectful or demeaning, but that, in some cases, the entitlement to speak one’s mind must be met with vigorous disagreement/opposition rather than legal remedies.
The integrity of a university depends on its ability to promote discussion of various topics, including those that are controversial. However, it is expected that these discussions will take place in a manner that is respectful of diverse perspectives and opinions.
It is possible to encourage and foster complex discussions in a way that is productive and considerate to all members of the Queen’s community. Here are some suggestions that you and your group should consider when planning an event on campus that could be viewed as controversial or offensive.
v Research your speakers When inviting any speaker to come to campus ensure that you conduct a thorough check into their background so that you are able to respond to public inquiries. Become as familiar as possible with their angle on the issue at hand and ensure that they’re able to meet your expectations. Feel free to ask your speaker for copies of their writings and speeches and speak to past event organizers who have used your speaker. If you wish your speaker to address particular issues, candidly ask them if they are willing to do so. If they refuse, perhaps you should consider bringing a different speaker.
v Consider all sides of the debate When planning a controversial campus event ensure that you are not uninformed of the “other side” of the issue. You are certainly not obliged to support or endorse other views, but you may want to be prepared for the kinds of questions/ concerns your event may raise within the community.
v Critique your own agenda Engaging with controversial ideas and complex issues is an important part of the university experience. However, when planning an event that may spark controversy, it is important to remember that we all have agendas. It is healthy to question what your agenda is as you organize your event and ask yourself if your actions are motivated by a genuine desire to stimulate critical thinking or by something else.
v Publicly promote your event A productive discussion on a controversial topic will include a diverse audience with diverse perspectives. Let the public know that your event is imminent and, when appropriate, provide them with a list of resources pertaining to the speaker and topic. This will allow for a more informed discussion.
v Consider appointing a moderator The moderator should be a neutral party who possesses good judgement. This person should be watchful of the tone of exchange during an event and should be assertive enough to intervene when it is necessary to remind participants of certain ground rules (e.g. “no personal attacks”)
v Allow for a question and answer period An appropriate timeframe (probably no less than 15-20 minutes) should be provided at the end of a speech to allow the audience to ask questions or challenge what the speaker has said. Audience members should have the opportunity to refute or disagree with your speaker. Make your speaker aware that they will be expected to answer questions and engage in a respectful discussion.
v Consult with others When in doubt seek guidance from persons with expertise in the subject area at hand, in the area of human rights and/or in security. Such individuals/groups can help ensure that your event is respectful, safe and successful.
* Special thanks to Jaqquie Kiggundu who assisted in the preparation of this guide.